Commons:Deletion requests/File:British National Front.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:British National Front.png

Meets COM:TOO UK. Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The file does not meet the threshold of originality since the logo's substance is wholely common property; per T.O.O. guidedlines, typographical logos are not considered original intellectual property. The Union Jack design embedded into the logo also does not meet T.O.O., as it is public-domain material and does not have sufficient creative transformation applied to it for its public-domain status to be invalidated. Arkansore (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The merging of the N and the F, the shadows, and the Union Jack background combined seem to me to be enough to meet the threshold; I'm seeing more originality here than on the Edge logo, which has been legally ruled to meet the threshold. Adam9007 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In the judge's statement regarding the ruling declaring the Edge logo eligible for copyright protection, it is stated that artistic originality requires 'the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work'; this being expressed in the subject through the 'distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E"'. This makes for two clear metrics in the UK system for what makes a logo artistically original: 'distinctiveness' and 'non-trivial effort'.

Regarding the 'distinctiveness' aspect, you state, for one, that the merging of the logo's letters is one feature that makes the logo meet the threshold. I would argue that this is not the case, as the merging of letters is common typographical practice and is not distinctive by any means; in the case of logos, compare the Kia logo as an example, which is internationally considered beneath the threshold of originality. Another example is the Yankee symbol, also the PlayStation logo — which could arguably be considered original with its shifted perspective between the P and the S, but still, it shows that letters being merged in a logo is not distinctive and could widely be considered, per the judge's own words, 'trivial effort' and not demonstrating clear artistic originality.

You also bring up the drop shadows featured behind the typography as an example of artistic originality; however, the aforestated legal ruling necessitates distinctive transformation to meet the threshold of originality. The drop shadow could not be considered a distinctive artistic development in any case; it is universally available in essentially all graphic design programs, including Photoshop, Illustrator and GIMP, not requiring any original creative input to be expended and is as such categorised by and large as common property.

Additionally, as I had mentioned in my previous reply, the Union Jack background is public-domain material, making it incapable of adding to a design's creative originality — the T.O.O. guidelines measure the designer's original creative input but the Union Jack background is dependent on previously created work, which makes its inclusion unoriginal and falls under trivial effort.

I understand that with the Edge logo being an example of a seemingly simple design meeting the UK T.O.O. guidelines, it could appear that this logo would meet the threshold too, but deconstructing the ruling and the guidelines themselves shows to be more nuanced and demonstrates that the National Front logo does not pass the originality threshold. Arkansore (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: per Arkansore. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)